The Deliberate Unmaking of India’s Right To Work

The transition from the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) to the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Aajeevika Mission (VB-G  RAM-G) represents a fundamental change in rural policy.

Right-Based vs. Supply-Driven

• MGNREGA (2005) was demand-driven, giving citizens a legal right to 100 days of work. 
• VB-G RAM-G (2025): The new system is supply-driven, where the Central Government has the authority to determine allocations to States and to decide where and to what extent the programme will operate.

Political and Ideological Turn

• Ideological Shift: The renaming from Gandhi to VB-G RAM G signals a deliberate political and ideological turn.
• Caps and Centralisation: The policy changes cap employment, centralise control and erode State autonomy.
• Effective End: As observed by Jean Drèze, these changes amount to an effective end rather than reform, hollowing out the legal force and moral foundations of the original law.

Financial Shift to States

• Change in Funding Ratio: Under the revised framework, the funding ratio has changed from 90:10 to 60:40 between the Centre and the States.
• Greater State Burden: This change places significantly greater financing obligations on States.
• Impact on Poorer States: Poorer States may struggle to meet this burden and may be compelled to curtail project approvals.
• Suppression of Demand: Curtailing approvals is likely to suppress demand for work directly.
• Threat to Viability: Devolving the scheme to States without corresponding fiscal support poses a serious threat to its continued viability.

Context of MGNREGA

• Response to Contradictions: MGNREGA emerged in response to the contradictions of post-liberalisation India, including agrarian distress, jobless growth, and livelihood insecurity.
• Limits of Market: These conditions exposed the limits of market-led development in generating employment and providing social protection.
• Rural Inequalities: By 2004, rural distress had intensified, employment creation lagged behind economic growth, and inequalities had widened.

Rights-Based Framework

• Rights Approach: NREGA, along with the Right to Information Act and the Forest Rights Act, represented rights-based responses to structural failures.
• Not Rejection of Liberalisation: These laws did not reject economic liberalisation but sought to temper its social consequences.
• Foundational Livelihoods: MGNREGA addressed the foundational issue of livelihoods rather than focusing solely on targeted deprivation.
• Employment as Dignified Protection: It recognised employment as the most effective and dignified form of social protection.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Evidence of Positive Impact

• Positive Outcomes: Empirical evidence demonstrated positive impacts on economic output, efficiency, and rural wages.
• Unprecedented Scale: The programme operated at an unprecedented scale, employing tens of millions of households annually.
• Democratic Innovation: Its universality and demand-driven strategy represented a democratic innovation.
• Legal Entitlement: Employment under MGNREGA was a legal entitlement; delays attracted compensation, and social audits and grievance mechanisms strengthened accountability.

Conclusion

The scrapping of MGNREGA signals the end of an era that attempted to reconcile economic growth with redistribution and enforceable rights.

DOWNLOAD PDF